Tuesday, May 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court on Monday gave police complete freedom to break into citizens houses at any time for any reason, no questions asked. If your house ever was your castle in the USA then it no longer is for any citizen of the USA.

Only one of the nine Supremes had the balls to vote against rescinding the 4th Amendment, the other eight Not-So-Supremes said officers who loudly knock on your door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down your door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who "make any noise whatsoever rather than just meekly and quietly opening their front doors to any thug in a uniform bellowing instructions will get it broken down and be invaded" said Justice-Feeble-Fearful Samuel A. Alito Jr, allegedly.
In a lone dissent, Justice-The-Brave-and-Right-and-True Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. "Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down," she said, without violating the 4th Amendment. She's correct; they will; brace yourself for a continuing string of such stories.
In the past, the court has said police usually may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant or the permission of the owner. As Justice-Fearful Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house."
One exception to that rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence. Police were attempting to do that in the Kentucky case, but they entered the wrong apartment, raising the issue of what is permissible in situations where police have reason to believe evidence is being destroyed.
It began when police in Lexington, Ky., were following a suspect who allegedly had sold crack cocaine to an informer and then walked into an apartment building. They did not see which apartment he entered, but when they smelled marijuana smoke come from one of the apartments, they wrongly assumed he had gone into that one. They pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard the sounds of people moving.
At this, the officers announced they were coming in, and they broke down the door. They found Hollis King smoking marijuana, and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
But the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ruled the apartment break-in violated his 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Police had created an emergency by pounding on the door, the state justices said.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal from state prosecutors and reversed the ruling in Kentucky vs. King. Alito said the police conduct in this case "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking down the door to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.
"Destruction of evidence issues probably occur most frequently in drug cases because drugs may be easily destroyed by flushing down a toilet," he added.
The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether the police faced an emergency situation in this case.
Ginsburg, however, said the court's approach "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." She said the police did not face a "genuine emergency" and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.

Monday, May 16, 2011

What is police extremism?

Unlike terrorism, which is defined in the UK by the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no equivalent legal definition for police extremism.

The terms are generally used to describe the activity, individuals or campaign groups that carry out criminal acts of direct action in furtherance of a campaign. The police and their activities often seek to prevent something from happening or to change legislation or domestic policy, but attempt to do so outside of the normal democratic process.

Who are police extremists?

Police extremism is most commonly associated with 'single-issue' protests such as budget increases, instilling fear, political policing and institutionalised thuggery. Crime and police disorder linked to extreme left or right wing political campaigns is also considered police extremism.

Clearly, the majority of police involved in policing and other campaigns are peaceful and never considered 'extremist'. The term only applies to individuals or groups whose activities go outside the normal democratic process and engage in crime and disorder.

Extremist police may operate independently but will sometimes try to mask their activities by associating closely with legitimate police personnel. ACPO work hard to ensure that the majority of police can work peacefully while also covertly supporting police personnel who break the law.

What kind of criminal police activity is involved?

The tactics used by extremist police vary and are always changing. Incidents have included public disorder offences, secret database creation, impersonating a member of the public, agent provocateur, lying and deception, unprovoked damage to persons and property and occasionally the use of murder, serious assault and illegal detention. Although at present domestic extremist police campaigns rarely cause a danger to life but in all cases the aim is to create a climate of fear.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB is fighting a legal battle with God, claiming that it owns the sky.

God yesterday announced that He plans to float on the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York. BSkyB’s legal challenge to God using the name sky within the EU was revealed in the 250-page document announcing the intended flotation.

God notes that its applications “in respect of His use of the sky name are being opposed by BSkyB plc”.

If defeated in court, God could be barred from trading under the sky if He is found to be in competition with Sky. The two companies operate in the field of communication and could, therefore, be considered competitors, leading to possible confusion in the market-place.

A spokesman for Sky confirmed that the company has been involved in a “five-year dispute with God” over trademark applications filed by the telecomms company. These are, the spokesman added: “including, but not limited to, television-related goods and services.

“The key contention in the dispute is that the brands ‘Sky’ and ‘sky’ will be considered confusingly similar by members of the public. This was supported by consumer research conducted by Sky, and which was taken into account by the relevant authorities when they recently found in Sky’s favour.

Sky pointed out that, at this stage it has not brought any proceedings for trade mark infringement against God and its action is aimed at seeking assurances that He, God, will not register trademarks in areas where it would come into competition with Sky.

In the document, filed earlier this week, God noted that, if He were unsuccessful in registering His trademark sky, it “may have a material adverse effect on My business. Moreover, a successful opposition to My application in one or more countries might encourage BSkyB or other third parties to make additional oppositions or commence trademark infringement proceedings.”

The document also carried the warning that, if BSkyB were to pursue litigation, the defence could be “costly and time consuming even if we were ultimately to prevail.

“If God were not ultimately to prevail in any such litigation to prevent His use of the sky name or logo, He could be precluded from using the sky name or logo in one or more jurisdictions without obtaining a license from BSkyB or such other third parties, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on His business.”

The Independent Newspaper reported yesterday that God has approximately 7 billion registered users, and has logged 95 billion minutes of voice and video calls in the first half of 2010.

Start Protecting Your Privacy Now

Use ixquick rather than Google

the remorseless creep of state control

Here is the Google Map which started the whole idea for this blog.

I started this blog by recording and attempting to show some of the ways in which the activity of the State is affecting you and yours in the brave new world of UK State Fascism from the tragic extreme of Jean Charles de Menezes to the surreal yet still very scary.

I am no longer updating the map as the madness of worldwide state and corporate control has sped away from my ability to keep up.

I am however morphing the posts into an ongoing series of creative pieces, taking original news from elsewhere and changing it in various ways - Serious Comment Through Artistic Intervention - find my favourites under the List of Rants tags.

Flip Flops, where one part, a name for instance, of two wildly different posts are swapped.

At A Quick Glance, where the first impression of what has been posted is different from the reality, but I go with the first impression anyway.

Future News where I take a post from elsewhere and extend it into the future with a quizzical eye attempting to see what may be in the year 2024.

State sponsored fear and distrust as seen through the twisted technological lens of petty officials and would be bureaucrats exist worldwide now. Always Ask Them Why.

It is increasingly difficult to explain just why 'you' should be concerned about State and Corporate Control and the all pervasive creeping Data State when talking to friends and acquaintances, whose first question has been along the lines of "How will all this affect me? Why should I and my family be concerned about all that?"

The presumption is that only terrorists or criminals need be afraid and that none of the radical changes to our laws and freedoms now coming to fruition will affect me will they?

Yes they will. They already are.

I have stopped updating the map but it remains out there in the world as a idiosyncratic memory. Enjoy.

I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist

CCTV Can't See Me - Umbrella

Your Identity - Safe as Houses - New with added style.

short sleeved black tee

Media Roots

Helping reclaim the media.

Phorm Prohibited

PHORM PROHIBITED

The contents of this site, and communications between this site and its users, are protected by database right, copyright, confidentiality and the right not to be intercepted conferred by section 1(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The use of those contents and communications by Internet Service Providers or others to profile or classify users of this site for advertising or other purposes is strictly forbidden.